evaluating Laurel candidates (SCA)

[cellio]

Non-SCA people probably won't be interested in this.

While cleaning up the pile of mail that arrived during Pennsic, I bumped into a message I had sent a few weeks ago to someone who asked what I look for in candidates for the Laurel, the SCA's peerage (highest-level award) for arts and sciences. This is what I wrote (cleaned up a bit):

After the basic requirements given in Corpora, here is what I look for:

• Superior skill in some SCA-appropriate field. I define fields broadly; research, court heraldry, period archery, and recreating period tournaments would all qualify.
  
• Knowledge of what is period and what is not, in detail within that field but to some broad level in other fields. The person should have done enough work with period techniques and materials to know first-hand what the issues are. You don't have to hand-sew all the garb, but you do have to have done it enough to understand which sewing-machine tricks aren't found in nature. :-)
  
• Peer-like qualities that can be summed up as "I would send a newcomer to this person for guidance without hesitation".
  
• Sharing the knowledge -- teaching, writing articles, one-on-one tutilege, I don't care so long as it happens (and isn't restricted to "only for my friends" or the like). I don't care how spiffy the stuff you make is if you don't share your knowledge with the rest of us. (This is aided by activity level, but I'm perfectly happy to give a Laurel to someone who mostly doesn't leave his home group if he has some other way of getting the knowledge out there.)
  
• A degree of inquisitiveness, intellectual rigor, and general approach to research that I find hard to describe. Critical thinking -- about your sources and about the conclusions you can draw from them -- is a big part of it. There is also a creativity aspect that is exemplified by projects such as the various "experimental archeology" efforts.
  
• Impact -- is the society a better place because of this person's presence? Not all fields are conducive to ground-breaking work (and this is certainly not required for the Laurel), but when the possibility exists and the candidate comes through, I consider it to be highly significant. The person who opens up a new field -- credibly! -- scores major points.
  
• "Tenure": while I don't have a set rule here, the candidate has to have beeen active in the SCA for several years. If a real-world expert joins the SCA and seems to acclimate within a year or two, he's still not ready for a peerage.

Comments

[fiannaharpar.livejournal.com]

Speaking of your two peerages.....how about what you look for in a Pelican? :-)

[cellio]

I should have expected that somehow. :-) Some items on my list aren't specific to the Laurel and I feel they should apply to all peerages: peer-like qualities, tenure, some variant on impact, and enabling others to also do the things you do. Skill in arts can be replaced with skill in some area(s) of service that in turn enriches the society. This does not have to mean holding offices, by the way; yes, people who hold (say) kingdom offices are more visible (think of this as kind of analogous to the "30,000 calligraphers" problem), but one can have a good body of service without being an officer and can be recognized for ti with a Pelican. (We've had some recent examples.)

Also with Pelicans, I look for something that could be called "leadership" but isn't quite. Maybe "inspiring others" is a better characterization. That is, there's a difference between showing up to wash dishes at all the local events and helping to make dish-washing run more smoothly (e.g. coordinating the volunteers so you have people at the right times, or noticing that we have these recurring bottlenecks and doing something about it, or whatever). This isn't a requirement; we've certainly had candidates who were seen as "good Indians but not good chiefs" -- but when a person is a good leader, that scores points.

Note that a person who does all the work himself and doesn't delegate is not only not a good leader but a bad leader, IMO.

There's also the issue of scope. Basically, the more localized the work, the longer you generally have to do it before it's Pelican-level service. The broader the impact (and assuming the work is done well, of course :-) ), the sooner the Pelican tends to come.

[bluekitsune.livejournal.com]

Great thread!! I love seeing conversations like this. It's too easy to perceive the Peerages as a popularity contest - it's always nice to have the facts reinforced. ;)

A question I like to ask of Pelicans, which you touch on... Are vast amounts of minor local service Pelican-worthy? For example, if someone is /always/ in the kitchen, every event, cleaning, cooking, whatever needs doing to clean up, and this is consistent for, oh, ten years, but they never hold a lofty office, are they someone you would consider as a candidate? My former Pelican had the standard of a 'Pelican sized hole' - will they leave a hole that big if they simply ceased to exist. I agree with that, but we disagreed on whether the scenario I just presented would qualify. I think it is possible to become such a fixture as clean-up crew, or gate staff, or kitchen help, or whatever, that if you ceased to exist it would be a Pel-sized hole, although certianly of a different nature than one who changes the way we play the game at a Society level. Opinions?

Drudge work = Pelican?

[alienor.livejournal.com]

Interesting question. My opinion follows, but bear in mind that I'm not a pelican and not a protege, though I am in fealty to a knight; it's not as a squire (confused yet?).

I tend to see service in terms of gradations of skill. It takes little skill to do much of the jobs that you are mentioning (clean-up crew, gate staff, or kitchen help). In fact, I've done some of those same jobs at my first handful of events. So (in my opinion) if you are doing jobs that new people could easily be trained to do (it takes very little training to say 'Take this broom and sweep out the cabins') then no, it's not pelican worthy.

However, if you are doing a job that requires skills (whether in an office or not), then you should be recognized. For example, the person who serves feast at every event shouldn't be a pelican. The person who takes the feast servers, organizes them, makes sure that they are serving in period manners (peers often served high table on their knees, things like that), and sets up a viable guild structure that ensures that the servers are trained (and still keeps the feast server job open to new people) should get a pelican.

I guess the bottom line is if that person wasn't there would the work get done? Certainly the sites would be cleaned, the food cut, and the feast served. The pelican is the person who improves the way it is done (or does something totally new).

Again, my opinion. I'd love to hear how other people look at this question?

Re: Drudge work = Pelican?

[bluekitsune.livejournal.com]

Mmkay. I can see that. It makes more sense to me thatn some of the previous explainations I've seen on the topic, in any case. I'm not entirely sure I agree with it, but I understand it.

I think in general I do agree, but I think there are definite exceptions. It's a spectrum thing, as I see it, with the constant, endless little jobs on one end and the one huge act of Society-level service on the other. I don't think that someone can consistently and relentlessly perform even a simple task such as doing the dishes without providing leadership, if only by example. I don't think everyone who washes dishes should eventually get a Pelican, but there are a few incredible souls out there who do, IMO.

Re: Drudge work = Pelican?

[cellio]

I don't think that someone can consistently and relentlessly perform even a simple task such as doing the dishes without providing leadership, if only by example.

I agree with this. If we're talking about that level of service (and not, say, the guy who shows up a couple times a year and washes dishes when he does), then yeah, he's going to end up leading and inspiring other people just by being there. And if it goes on for long enough and consistently enough then he could receive a Pelican for it.

[cellio]

I think it depends on how the person goes about it. I'd personally like to see some amount of leadership, organization, etc -- to continue this example, he doesn't have to autocrat bazillions of events or become local seneschal or regional minister of arts and sciences or the like, but I'd like to see him organize the cleanup crews sometimes, or be responsible for the gate at some events, and stuff like that. Work is a component of a Pelican, of course, but -- to varying levels -- when we recognize someone as a Pelican we're saying that he's one of the organizers, part of the glue that holds the society together, one of the people who Makes Things Happen. You can't lead X without having done X (and often continuing to do it), but you should be paving the way for the next wave of people who are going to do that job, and you should be looking for ways that their job can be easier than yours was. Stuff like that.

Does that help at all?

My Thoughts

[syrrichard.livejournal.com]

Three comments:

First, a person should have performed to the extent that they have stretched themselves. IMO that would not be covered by simple drudge work. The leadership principle applies. Certainly, each candidate for a peerage should be judged on their own merits, but I can see the cheif cook at several dozen events getting a Pelican. I could not see that for the water boy.

Second, I think what we are discussing is "high service". Whether it be an office or a management position, high service should be a considerstion for all peerages. Peers should be leaders not only by example but by their ability to manage.

Third, (and you can get out your rotten fruit, now) fencers, riders and archers should NOT be added to the Chivalry. It's a case of apples vs. a fruit basket of other items. They may be delicious, but they are not apples. Perhaps some form of Field Peerage, but probably not. There just doesn't seem to be the necessary support fot this.